This Time and Every Time It"s Personal

In case you hadn't noticed this blog is my entirely personal and eclectic view of the world. Organisations I belong to disown me and every word of this thing - long before the cock crows. I blog what I want and I blogit when when I want. I rarely delete comments and will generally carry corrections and observations prominently on request. This time, and every time ... it's personal.

Friday, July 25, 2008

About 1450 majority? SNP win. All but two or three of nine to lose deposits? The third/fourth/fifth party squeeze evident, despite predictions to the contrary? Better turnout than in Scottish Parliament?

I know I will be insulted for saying this, even by by most labour supporters. But I honeslty think the vote was fixed. The bookies and polls gave labour massive leads. Yet the snp win by 300 votes. Does anyone not find that a bit odd? If this was a soccer match people would question it why does not one ever question if the instead of the surverys and bookies being wrong that it was a fix.

If you cast your mind back a day Lakelander you will find that the iceberg, looking not dissimilar in proportion to the 32 counties, is cup tied having been usd in the current competition by a Labour blogger to represent Irish politics.

The situation in the country will come round. Labour will get the impression management back under control. And Tory sleaze will go from click to slick until it is unignorable.

Voter fraud happened in last year's scottish elections. OK I admitt by both parties. But it is the SNP in power so they are in even more of position to do this sort of stuff, escpailly as I am sure they might got help form the tories. I assure everyone if this had been the other way around there would be questions. Could you imagine if the snp had lead by 17 points with a week to go and bookies odds had shown massive chances of the snp winning, after voting had stopped, and labour still winning. Plus with no exit poll. We would be hearing news of MI5 conspiracies, voter fraud. So why is this not done this time. I am sorry but when there is no exit poll, and someone wins by 300 votes it smells fishy. I realise the vast majority of labour supporters dissagree with me on this one. But the party has to make sure it has not just been done likea akipper.

If you can come up with a single piece of evidence to back up your case then we will all listen. And real evidence - not "a mate told me about this man down the pub who heard from his neighbour that one of the returning officers was wearing a kilt".

To be fair, Chris, at least he has put some thought into why Labour lost and has actually come out with a reason - that is, of course, if paranoid deluions can be passed off as 'thought'.

Your contribution has been to say that it can possible be the party, or the policies, or the leader. Therefore it must be the presentation. That's right, it isn't that we have been desperately trying to appease the middle classes by shafting the poor, it's just that we haven't got the message across.

Dirty Euro's answer is a meticulously researched thesis compared to that one.

Clearly there are huge problems anon. I do wish you'd get out of your shell btw it really weakens your points if you won't put your name to them.

It is bloody obvious how and why we lost, despite having a good candidate, a good Labour council in Glasgow, and actually a good track record in Glasgow East. And that despite what you call appeasement and what the cabinet would call building a coalition.

We have to win 340 seats after all. Winning the most multiple-y deprived 100 ain't going to be enough.

I sympathise with that problem though I don't agree with the chosen solution as you would know and acknowledge if you were fair-minded and not a snivelling, dissembling coward.

Salmond and even Mason understand all this better than Cameron does. And where was Clogg?

I've noticed that you don't attack people personally who post anonymously to agree with you.

In fact, I have been told by several members of the Labour Party that you post anonymously to point out what a brilliant analyst you are. If that's not the definition of "a snivelling, dissembling coward" I don't know what is.

If it really is "bloody obvious" how and why Labour lost Glasgow East, why were you claiming victory until the very last minute. It can't be both 'bloody obvious' and a surprise.

Indeed, it is 'bloody obvious' to me and millios of others. However, I'm afraid your "It'll Be Alright On The Night" attitude shows that it is actually anything but obvious to you.

I am not saying a betting fix where did I say it was a betting fix. I said the snp or the tories might have fixed it. Voter fraud has happened before. Why would it not happen again?How does a party turn a 17 point lead to a 300 vote win. How? No wonder voter fraud happens there never seem to be any questioning of any dodgy results.

Has it even occured to you that the polls might just have got it wrong. Has it occured to you that the bookies may have been basing their odds on the polls? Has it occured to you that it is far easier to manipulate betting odds than it is to do so with elections? Has it then occured to you that the only people who would have been fixing either the polls of the odds to get these outcomes would have been the Labour Party?

Or maybe the polls were just plain wrong! Any evidence to the contrary will be gratefully received by many - including Strathclyde Police.

Why on earth would the labour party fix bookies odds. Why? Do you think they are the political wing of ladbrokes. LOL. I am sorry but it does not make sense that when bookies and opinion surveys are wrong people never question the election result. If this was Zimbabwe no one would accept it.

Because placing bets in by-elections is not about making money but about manipulating perceptions as to likely winners.

So little money is actually placed in such events that it doesn’t take much to affect the odds. This means that it is then possible to run stories such as “Labour Set To Win” or “Bookies Slash Odds On Labour Victory” etc etc.

Only Labour knew that this by-election was going to happen at all. Labour decided the date of the election and chose to have a very short campaign of a little over 3 weeks. Labour also control the local council that run the whole election operation.

To have fixed this election the SNP would have had to have done one or all of the following

· stuffed the electoral register with bogus names. But as they did not know the election was even going to happen, they have therefore stuffed the register of every constituency in Scotland, just in case.

· organised a huge impersonation operation in the three weeks between the election being called and the day of polling itself

· rigged either the running of the polling day operation or the actual count. Seeing as the Labour run council is responsible for all the nuts and bolts of polling day, I find this beyond credibility.

· organised a massive postal vote fraud – again in just three weeks from a standing start. The number of postal votes applied for was actually only slightly up on usual – despite the fact that Labour had called the election for the middle of Glasgow holidays

So please, please tell me how the SNP managed to rig this election. Because you are right about Zimbabwe. The reason that Mugabe was able to fix things was that he was in control of running them. His accusation that the opposition MDC was guilty of voter fraud is just laughable. Let that be a lesson.

There are many, many ways to fix a vote if you are powerful enough. I am not saying it would be the SNP on their own. Maybe it would someone else helping them who did most of the work. But why is it the vote favoured labour until about 20 to 30 ballot boxes were mentioned to have been brough in round about half eleven. Then shortly after it was mentioned the snp would win? Anyone could fix it MI5, MI6, CIA Chinese secret service, russian secret service, neo cons elites wanting to get rid of the PM to impose a neo con who wants to invade Iran, shadowy millionaires elites who want to destroy the left, tory elites, snp, tories, betting fraud by a group, rebels in the labour movement. Maybe a collection of them. Why not? I do not know who fixed it, it could be anyone. Like who killed JFK who knows. The maffia, cia, nixon lbj, or all of them. OK this make me seem mad but i don't care, i just find it odd that party can win back a 17 point deficit in a week and win by just 300 votes, in an area which has sufferred voter fraud from both parties. No one questions it. Why?

When I said I don't care I meant I don't care if it makes me look mad. Vopter fraud is very easy if people cover it up. And any powerful group of people could do it. The SNP often have voter fraud against them. This time I am saying someone helped them.

It's a good job that you don't care if it makes you look mad, because it does.

Who fixed the result, DE?

How did they do it?

The only party that would have had the wherewithall to carry out such an operation is Labour. To follow your 'logic' maybe they did fix it. After all Mugabe rigged the first round in the Presidential election in Zimbabwe and still lost.

Read the official report into the fixing of elections in Scotland. You will find that far from it taking place on all sides, the sole perpetrators were Labour.

Maybe the final 20 to 30 ballot boxes were the real ones and it was the others that were dodgy. Maybe the polls were fixed and the ballot itself was squeaky clean.

And, in case you have forgotten, it was Labour that invaded Iraq. Are you saying the CIA/MI5/MI6/YMCA/B&Q teamed up to fix the vote for Tony Blair?